GodvilleMerry VotingWarm greetings to you, Godville gods!
There are a lot of good news today. Let's start with guild-related ones.
Guilds in Godville are self-sustaining amorphous substances and nobody really knows how they all work, which sometimes could be confusing. It's time to bring a bit more order to this anarchy. From now on, the guild members will be able to elect a leader via newly created "page":https://godvillegame.com/stats/guild_control. All prominent candidates can nominate themselves and fight for the mindshare of the fellow guildmates with mind-blowing campaigns in the Guild Council, forum topic, etc. It's assumed that the leader will do things for the greater good of the guild, but in case he won't, the guild members can always impeach him before the end of his term.
So, what a leader can do? In the ZPG spirit of Godville - probably not too much, but enough to bring a bit more order and fun to the guilds. A leader can set a daily topic for the Guild Council and setup a quick link to the guild's forum topic to improve guild collaboration. For the high-ranked guilds the leaders will also be able to setup their own high-level guild rank and pick a known monster as a guild totem which will sure come in handy in the future. But enough words, let's get to voting!
Meanwhile, the spirit of upcoming holidays is slowly but surely descending upon Godville. A pop-up settlement, also known as Laplandville, has opened their doors right next to the capital and began disrupting its business with bargain sales, overly generous traders, and extra efficient praying chapels. Heroes' diaries are full of snow, and their sacks are full of gifts, while overcharged Holiday monsters are festively running around. Satan Clauses and Santa Clawses are also back in town and they look happy and quite tamable.
Happy holidays! Ho-ho-ho!
!{display: block;margin-left: auto;margin-right: auto; width:85%}http://wiki.godville.net/images/thumb/c/ca/Godville_ny.jpg/800px-Godville_ny.jpg!:http://wiki.godville.net/images/c/ca/Godville_ny.jpg2014-12-24T12:50:31ZKingdada<p>merry christmas and happy new year.</p>
<p>would be good being loyal to guild will get us rank 1 careerist</p>Wed, 24 Dec 2014 12:55:18 +0000Hershey Almighty<p>Merry voting to all! Happy Holidays!</p>Wed, 24 Dec 2014 12:59:33 +0000God of Storms<p>Merry Christmas godville!!!:D</p>Wed, 24 Dec 2014 13:02:39 +0000Jimbob65<p>Looks like a great day to me!</p>Wed, 24 Dec 2014 13:11:16 +0000Dragon Orb<p>Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!! Yipee! Thank you for the contents!</p>Wed, 24 Dec 2014 13:11:53 +0000The Octagon<p>Happy festivus, one and all!</p>Wed, 24 Dec 2014 13:18:35 +0000Anubhav2<p>Merry christmas and happy new year!</p>Wed, 24 Dec 2014 13:19:40 +0000The God Of Monsters<p>The “newly created <ins>page</ins>” link in the blog post takes us to … the blog post. Shouldn’t it take us somewhere more, ahem, interesting?</p>
<p>Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all, from the monster guild.</p>Wed, 24 Dec 2014 13:23:02 +0000The God Of Monsters<p>(Hint: check your <a>guild pages</a> )</p>Wed, 24 Dec 2014 13:26:12 +0000The Truthseeker<p>Apologies, I hate being <em>that</em> kind of replier, but:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>A pop-up settlement, also known as Laplandville, has opened their doors right next to the capital and began disrupting its business with bargain sales, overly generous traders, and extra efficient praying chapels. Heroes’ diaries are full of snow, and their sacks are full <strong>ot</strong> gifts, while overcharges Holiday monsters are festively running around.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>You need to fix that typo in bold.</p>
<p>That written aside, this is a wonderful and Christmas-y fun thing! Thanks and Merry Christmas!</p>Wed, 24 Dec 2014 13:27:17 +0000Firawr<p><strong>Merry Christmas to All</strong>
& HAPPY NEW YEAR 2015.
WOOOOO! 2014 WAS A BLAST.</p>Wed, 24 Dec 2014 13:51:33 +0000Brinjal<p>Merry Christmas! (or whatever it is you celebrate) And this guild leader thing sounds very exciting! I can’t wait to find out more!</p>Wed, 24 Dec 2014 13:59:00 +0000Wilhelmina Wang<p>Harpy chrimbole</p>Wed, 24 Dec 2014 14:12:06 +0000Hairplug4men<p>politics! Just the thing I was hoping to get for Christmas</p>Wed, 24 Dec 2014 14:38:41 +0000Domerthos<p><del>_</del> Y u doin this, Devs? Do we really need politics here? And most guilds already HAVE their leaders, mostly the founder… sigh…
Anyway, Merry Christmas everyone!</p>Wed, 24 Dec 2014 15:01:30 +0000Vorpal<p><strong>Slaves to Armok</strong> has never had leaders, never needed leaders, never WANTED leaders! (I know, I’m such a scrooge and a grinch) We are a collective. Like the Borg ship. “You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile”. Hopefully, there will be an option for guilds that as a whole, do not want a hierarchy of ANY KIND</p>Wed, 24 Dec 2014 15:10:49 +0000Vorpal<p>…and holiday greetings to everyone!</p>Wed, 24 Dec 2014 15:12:44 +0000Haylie<p>I really like this new leaders idea. Hopefully means more for guilds in the future! I don’t understand all the hate. Having 1 person to be the one capable of accessing these features keeps everything under much greater control than hundreds changing it every other minute!</p>Wed, 24 Dec 2014 16:04:14 +0000Vorpal<p>For a lot of, and probably most guilds, I think the new features are just fine. But there should be an option for long standing guilds, that have never had nor want a hierarchy. Several members have posted in our guild council, and the overwhelming response is against this.</p>Wed, 24 Dec 2014 16:11:06 +0000Vorpal<p>One of the eldest Slaves said it best in the <strong>StA</strong> GC: “The culture and flavor of our fellowship reflects this guiding principle: Armok is our Lord and we are his Slaves. We need no leader- dwarf, human, or elf.”</p>Wed, 24 Dec 2014 16:37:18 +0000Artsonian<p>Another challenge point, to play off of Vorpal’s comments, is that it’s a very different thing to be the single leader of a guild with 80 members versus a guild with over 500 members. Some of the longer-standing guilds, such as Blue Feather and Harvest Moon, are huuuge, and could (a) be hard for one person to handle and (b) lead to the potential of politics and in-fighting, especially if one could lose rank by some angry members. I know that, “back in the day” Blue Feather had a Leadership Circle of 5-6 members, and solid leadership was a formidable task, even when spread between the group of us.</p>
<p><strong>That being said…</strong> I think there’s some interesting potential in this new development, and I especially think it’s pretty neat that we got this right around the same time as Russian Godville — for once, we’re not having to rely on Google Translate to give us a small preview into our future!</p>
<p>Thanks, as always, devs, for an awesome game, and a wonderful holiday season to all deities out there!</p>Wed, 24 Dec 2014 17:15:19 +0000Brinjal<p>To the guilds who do not want a leader: why not ask everyone to not run for the position. And if someone does run and get the job, have them removed from the position, since you don’t want one.</p>Wed, 24 Dec 2014 18:32:19 +0000Greatly Divine One<p>Am I the only one not excited about this update? Im scared that this will lead to politics and stuff when right now everything is good and peaceful. But who knows? This change might be a good thing. Only time will tel.</p>Wed, 24 Dec 2014 19:05:20 +0000Irwin<p>I dislike this feature despite having no idea what it will eventually mean. You can ban trolls from the chat, that’s all you need.</p>
<p>I do not like being told that from what was a happy band of nomads now requires a leader.</p>
<p>Lead this.</p>Wed, 24 Dec 2014 19:37:31 +0000Phexides<p>This is a really good update – if you want to know my opinion. <br> Thank you developers for making this game better with each update!<br> Merry Christmas everybody!</p>Wed, 24 Dec 2014 19:48:31 +0000Ladypersephone<p>Merry Christmas.</p>Wed, 24 Dec 2014 20:45:14 +0000Bellatrixie The Strange<p>The thing I find troubling in the election process is that deposed leaders would have their rank demoted to cardinal. That alone is making me rethink running for leader – I’ve worked a long time to make it to prophet. Wouldn’t losing leadership status be punishment enough?</p>Wed, 24 Dec 2014 22:02:43 +0000Brinjal<p>I have to agree with <strong>Bellatrixie</strong>. If serious punishment is needed, why not something like inability to participate in future leader elections. (Or at least, a temporary ban on it, say for the next three elections)</p>Wed, 24 Dec 2014 22:08:26 +0000Jordayne<blockquote>
<p>02:17: The sight of my really priceless gift was far too much for the trader to bear. While he was unconscious, I completed the transaction myself and gained 41123 gold coins.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Wed, 24 Dec 2014 22:34:47 +0000Jordayne<blockquote>
<p>02:17: The sight of my really priceless gift was far too much for the trader to bear. While he was unconscious, I completed the transaction myself and gained 41123 gold coins.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Woohoo!! Merry Christmas!</p>Wed, 24 Dec 2014 22:35:27 +0000Billy Batson<p>Happy Holidays everyone!</p>Wed, 24 Dec 2014 23:48:21 +0000Outlander 85<p>I always loved this game. For years on the website. Long king hero Varitus and His godess Aquaritus are retired but living strong. Many memories. Love you both. Now back again with a new chapter with same godess different hero.</p>Thu, 25 Dec 2014 00:15:24 +0000The Worst God<p>Next update idea issue 1: making pics now and then for updades on the hero</p>Thu, 25 Dec 2014 01:37:27 +0000Mystyc<p>07:42 PM The christmas miracle suddenly jumped out of my backpack, fell to the ground, started to sizzle, and slowly transformed into a kill switch. I love these SFX! (so much fun to have holiday cheer spread around!)</p>Thu, 25 Dec 2014 02:46:12 +0000AdamShi<blockquote>
<p>07:59
I offered the trader the really priceless gift for free as a friendly gesture, but he said he’d rather pay 83333 gold coins than consider himself my friend.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Looks like Laplandville is really big on really priceless gifts.</p>
<p>Merry Christmas everyone!</p>Thu, 25 Dec 2014 04:03:26 +0000Hairplug4men<blockquote>
<p>A guild leader can set a topic for the Guild Council, choose a new rank for the high-level guild members and select a monster as a guild’s totem. A leader is elected for three months, but he can be deposed earlier (with the rank being lowered to cardinal).</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Please change that punishment!</p>Thu, 25 Dec 2014 06:12:55 +0000Saki Watanabe<p>Yeah. I agree with Bellatrixie, Brinjal and Hairplug4men. That kind of punishment is really harsh. Like, playing this game for a long time, waiting to reach a high rank and then <em>swoosh</em> You become “leader” and are deposed AND back to Cardinal :T</p>Thu, 25 Dec 2014 09:22:53 +0000Obscureone<p>I can somewhat agree with the whole punishment being a bit much thing, but at the same time the new role of leader has very little real power so you’d pretty much be a jerk to depose anyone. I mean unless they make a guild topic about punting kittens or something what are they gonna do that’s worth deposing them before the end of 3 months? 3 months isn’t exactly a long time when it comes to a game like godville. I think from a developer perspective a punishment like that is a fail safe. It’s a serious (ish) punishment so that people don’t abuse or do inappropriate things with the marginal amount power a leader has and so that similarly nonleader members take deposing seriously so you’re not deposing someone just because you wanted to be leader. I mean with no punishment people would depose the leader all the time. Also reducing your rank to cardinal is just like a temporary ban on being able to nominate yourself from elections like you just suggested</p>Thu, 25 Dec 2014 11:05:36 +0000Obscureone<p>Furthermore if you’re that worried about the rest of your guild deposing you and screwing up your rank, then you may either want to
A: not do anything worth being deposed for
B: find a guild with less jerks.
Or
C: just don’t run for leader.</p>Thu, 25 Dec 2014 11:16:26 +0000Firawr<p>This is to wish all those for whom Christmas is the birth date of Jesus Christ a truly meaningful Christmas. To appreciate the meaning of this day and to know that all of us are blessed. So spend time with family, friends, loved ones and give yourselves a wonderful treat</p>Thu, 25 Dec 2014 13:45:04 +0000Brinjal<p>Don’t want to start an off-topic debate here, but why limit your well wishes to only one group of people, <strong>Firawr</strong>? I wish <em>everyone</em> happiness throughout the festive season, regardless of religious views!</p>Thu, 25 Dec 2014 14:21:04 +0000Lokichapman<p>I wish those all a merry humbug</p>Fri, 26 Dec 2014 04:03:10 +0000Hairplug4men<p>I agree, I guess I just don’t understand why there needs to be any punishment for impeachment. I would like to know more about the impeachment process how they regulate any trouble from coming in and just screwing with things. I’m not saying I’m in a guild with any jerks but I also am in a guild with over 400 people. I just don’t know every one of them</p>Fri, 26 Dec 2014 04:27:04 +0000Mommitude<p>Leader “demotion” to Cardinal is harsh. I like *Brinjal*’s idea to maybe have the person be temporarily unable to run for leader for a few elections. Or have it be like write in ballots where you CANNOT nominate yourself, someone ELSE in the guild with at least Cardinal rank has to nominate you. I just don’t like the whole “messes with rank” thing since that is based on managing to get your hero to stay in a guild for a specific amount of time… Just my opinion.</p>
<p><br> </br> slightly off topic rant: it’s hard enough to get to monarch / patriarch, regent, or prophet rank —> I seriously think if you manage to get to prophet you should have to TELL your hero to leave the guild rather than them just leaving if you don’t check on them. PERIOD!! The time for your hero to stay in the guild without trying to leave should be at least half (if not equal to) the amount of time it took to get to that rank!! Seriously, we all have real life stuff and a death in the family can easily cause thirty days away from any game seem like not even close to enough time to deal with all that entails. I know because I’ve been there. Ok. Rant over.</p>Fri, 26 Dec 2014 10:42:45 +0000Firawr<p><strong>Brinjal</strong> I’ve wished everyone already look at the older comments I’ve posted. I never ignored the rest. Hey, you even posted after me in the old comments. How’d you missed that?</p>Sat, 27 Dec 2014 05:36:21 +0000Brinjal<p><strong>Firawr</strong> Oh, sorry! I didn’t notice.</p>Sat, 27 Dec 2014 20:34:43 +0000Crystal Anya<p>Happy holidays</p>Sun, 28 Dec 2014 03:29:21 +0000Dylanwaynebull<p>so I’m having the problem i created the guild and my hero left the guild while i was out to sea and when i returned i rejoined. my guild member want to elect me, but idk how to do this an help??</p>Sun, 28 Dec 2014 16:08:47 +0000Obscureone<p>I think you all are kind of missing the point. The reason the punishment is a bit harsh is that it’s only supposed to be used in extreme circumstances. I’m sure the creators originally debated putting no punishment, or possibly debated even having no form of impeachment. However, ounce of prevention/pound of cure it’s better to prepare for the possibility of someone abusing the system. Thus if someone gets to be leader and they start making topics about punting puppies or kicking kittens and are acting contrary to how your guild feels then you can impeach them. The reduction in rank only happens when you’re impeached and it also is supposed to mostly serve as a temporary ban on elections. It’s also there to prevent people from wrongfully impeaching a leader. If there was no real penalty to impeachment then people would be apt to try and impeach leaders all willy nilly. I honestly don’t think impeaching is supposed to happen often and I honestly don’t think it will. It’s just a fail safe. Just in case an elected leader acts poorly. And even then one would hope that you would try to talk to him/her before outright impeaching them and give them a chance to reform their actions.</p>Sun, 28 Dec 2014 17:03:15 +0000Artsonian<p>I understand your point, <strong>Obscureone</strong> …. but there is only a penalty for the one who is impeached. While I would hope that no one in my guild would abuse the “impeach” button, the reality is that out of 400/500+ members, there’s no guarantee that people would care enough about MY guild rank to not impeach. Most trolls don’t care about protecting the feelings/experiences of other people, so if I can hurt someone else with no penalty to me …. that’s awesome!!! (Thinking like a troll, of course)</p>
<p><em><strong>tl;dr</strong> There is no penalty for <strong>impeaching,</strong> only for <strong>being impeached.</strong></em></p>Sun, 28 Dec 2014 20:32:27 +0000Artsonian<p>PS ~ you can ban from elections without losing guild rank. I think the only real concern of folks is losing hierarch/prophet — simply losing ability to run is non-issue, I would guess. People get banned from Guild Chat without losing rank … I would assume/hope a similar thing could be done for election. <em>Plus, getting docked to cardinal from prophet is <strong>way</strong> more than a “temporary” thing.</em></p>Sun, 28 Dec 2014 20:36:52 +0000Trinacria<p>What happens if <strong>no one</strong> in the guild is willing to self-nominate? Our guild has two highly qualified members who are both too modest to place themselves in nomination. Will nominations be opened up?</p>Sun, 28 Dec 2014 20:45:35 +0000Obscureone<p>That’s the thing though even in a guild of 400-500 I would assume impeachment would require a majority. So if the majority of your guild is trolls willing to screw you over, then what does that say about your guild more so than the impeaching feature. Would it suck to lose your high rank, yes of course, but if you’re really that afraid of people abusing the impeaching then don’t go for leader or wait and see how your guild mates handle it. I suppose I don’t know the requirements for impeachment, but again I’d assume they’d put in a majority rule for for that so you’re really only going to get impeached if you deserve it.</p>Mon, 29 Dec 2014 07:54:43 +0000Artsonian<p>Yes, that was my assumption as well. After all, it takes three cardinals to silence in GC; I trust deposing would take far more. Just missed that piece of “group mentality being needed” in your comments.</p>Mon, 29 Dec 2014 15:37:01 +0000Hairplug4men<p>that’s why I am very interested in seeing how they handle the impeachment process. I would have no problem if it was majority rule to impeach. To get 51 percent of my guild to do anything in my opinion would be impossible.even if we had a horrible leader to impeach that’s over 250 people to corral in a zero player game</p>Mon, 29 Dec 2014 20:05:08 +0000Iduna<p>I agree that loss of rank is far too harsh. It also removes an element of ZPG if your status depends on others!</p>Mon, 29 Dec 2014 20:42:37 +0000Obscureone<p>I mean I don’t actually know, that was just kinda my assumption. I would assume this would be entire guild majority. So that’s the thing I don’t think the impeachment is so bad I think the devs just need to be a little bit more clear on how the whole process works.</p>Mon, 29 Dec 2014 23:43:05 +0000Azzageddi<p>So, just voted and…I wasn’t planning on telling everyone who I’d voted for, but now everyone who wants to check can know. And, if I should win, then I’m just going to have to resist the urge to check, because do you REALLY think a guild leader should know who in the guild voted for him or her, and who voted for someone else? Does that sound like a good idea?</p>
<p>Devs, I love this game a lot, and you do so many things right, but man, this elections thing really needs a lot of work.</p>
<p>As many have pointed out, the demotion to Cardinal is too harsh.</p>
<p>A lot of guilds already have their own system, from “leaderless” or an elected Inner Council or just happy rule under the founder of the guild. Some of us, like the AMCW, put in a lot of work to set up our system, after our founders quit playing the game. And now we’ve had a system imposed on us from above, with no chance to make suggestions. Is it any wonder some people are upset?</p>
<p>One person I was chatting with about it had a suggestion: Allow guilds to choose whether to have elections. That is, if a number (determined by guild size) of established members (maybe cardinal or above) click the “call for elections” button, then an election is held. This is similar to the expelling procedure. That way guilds that have at least a few unhappy members can do this, and those that are fine with the way they have developed themselves for doing things don’t get a different system thrust upon them.</p>
<p>(Also, in the messages for the nomination, the use of “he” for the guild leader is annoying. Two of our candidates are women.)</p>
<p>Happy New Year, y’all.</p>Wed, 31 Dec 2014 23:33:19 +0000Azzageddi<p>Note that the “call for elections” procedure also removes the need for impeachment, as it could allow for a call to elections at any time. This also would mean that guilds wouldn’t have to go through this every three months, just when there is a problem that can’t be resolved in other ways.</p>Wed, 31 Dec 2014 23:45:51 +0000LuLu the Grand<p>Well, voting just opened. Speaking as someone from a smaller guild, the voting rules as listed (if I understand them correctly) will make it just about impossible for our guild to elect a leader even though we only have one nomination and an active part of the guild ready to elect the nominee. There are only 7 members that are cardinal or higher. So to get 5 votes means getting 71%. Sigh. Not sure these rules were thought out for smaller guilds.</p>Thu, 01 Jan 2015 01:41:07 +0000Azzageddi<p>Yes, even though we are a medium-sized guild, and active in both Guild Council and Forum, I’m actually not sure that 35% of our voting members even know we’re having an election. As active as we are, it’s really just a small number of people who speak up at all. Glancing over our member list, we have members who’ve been in the guild for 2+ years who have never spoken in GC or posted on the forums.</p>
<p>Having sent an alt to join various guilds on a goodwill tour last year, I think we’re above average on participation. So I really don’t know how this 35%/5 votes thing will work out.</p>Thu, 01 Jan 2015 04:13:28 +0000Artsonian<p>I second what Azz said about seeing who voted for whom. Not only that <del>-</del> I haven’t voted yet, but I can already see what the vote totals are. Shouldn’t it be like the ideabox, where you can’t see the results until <strong>after</strong> you vote? I didn’t click through to see who voted for whom, but if that can be seen prior to voting as well…… that doesn’t seem right either.</p>Thu, 01 Jan 2015 15:52:23 +0000Brinjal<p>Earlier I thought the system seemed fine. If a guild had someone they called leader, they could elect them. If they didn’t, they could just choose one, and if they didn’t want one, they could all agree not to nominate themselves and if anyone did, refuse to vote and depose them if they got elected. And as for the reset to cardinal, if you are worried your guildmates will bump you back to cardinal, that says more about your guildmates than the system. However, then I saw the voting system.</p>
<p>You’ve done voting systems before. You got it right in the ideabox. It’s entirely anonymous. Nobody knows who voted for what. Only how many voted. That’s good. Why isn’t that the case here? If people want to tell everyone who got their vote, fine, but voting should by default be anonymous.</p>
<p>Secondly, the rule of:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>A guild leader will be elected if he gets at least 35% (and not less than 5) votes of all eligible voters.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Okay, I understand you want to make sure a vote can’t be won unless there are a significant number of guild members participating, that’s good. However, this system could mean in small guilds that nobody gets elected. If a guild has 6 eligible voters and 2 candidates, then it’s possible that 2 people may vote for one candidate while 4 vote for the other, meaning that neither is elected, despite all voters participating and there being a clear winner.</p>
<p>On the flipside some guilds have over 100 eligible voters. In most guilds only a small fraction of members use the guild council, let alone vote. In these guilds merely getting 35% of eligible voters to <em>vote</em> let alone all vote for one person would be an achievement!</p>
<p>So what should be done? I say:</p>
<ol>
<li>Make voting anonymous</li>
<li>Make the rule be that 35% of voters and at least 5 people must <em>vote</em> but not all for the same person</li>
<li>(Optional) Replace the demotion to Cardinal with temporary ban from voting/nominating in elections.</li>
<li>(Optional) Make elections be called for by high ranking members, not done automatically.</li>
</ol>Thu, 01 Jan 2015 16:36:33 +0000Brinjal<p><strong>Artosian</strong> You can retract and change your vote. (Presumably so that if a debate in the council sways you you can change your mind) So the thing of only being able to see the totals once you vote wouldn’t change much. People could vote, see the totals, retract their vote and revote based on knowledge of the totals. In a way, I think it isn’t so bad that you can see the totals. If you realise your first choice has 0 chance of getting in, you can vote for your second choice instead.</p>Thu, 01 Jan 2015 16:41:37 +0000Artsonian<p>Ditto to what <strong>Brinjal</strong> said. Another possibility could be to lower the <strong>voting</strong> (not running) age. After all, to some extent, investment in the guild is shown by the need to continuously cancel guild-change requests. And, especially in people’s first guilds, that’s when they’re really getting into the game and the guild. Sure, they may not have the experience to be in charge, but surely after 45 days in a guild, they should have some sense of things enough to have a voice. That would also help the numbers side of things — even if it were “X number of the votes have to come from cardinal and up”.</p>
<p>The vote-revoking reason makes sense, although I still think the first vote should be a “blind” vote, so that you don’t end up with “well, everyone else is doing it” from those who don’t care. If it’s “my guy won’t win anyway” then the election comes down to whoever got the early votes. In my classroom, any time I give the kids a preference/choice, I make it an eyes/close/raise hands blind vote. Even the ideabox makes you vote before you know the impact of your choice.</p>
<p>Or, why not keep all numbers hidden until the end? You can still change your vote if you’d like, it’s just that you won’t see any totals until voting is over.</p>
<p>*tl;dr…. my suggestions
1. Everything in <em>Brinjal’s</em> list below
2. Lower the voting age to maybe 45 days (don’t remember the ranks at the moment)
3. Hide vote totals until the end.</p>Thu, 01 Jan 2015 17:45:25 +0000Brinjal<p>I agree with the proposition to hide vote totals until the end, or at <em>least</em> not show them until after you initially vote.</p>
<p><strong>Artosian</strong> At 45 days you’d be a Chief Master (and would have been for 10 days) It might be arguably more suitable to give it at day 60, or lower to day 35, since this would coincide with a rank. (Advisor and Chief Master respectively)</p>Thu, 01 Jan 2015 18:28:11 +0000Zigfried<p>Cool</p>Thu, 01 Jan 2015 20:44:09 +0000Dhdave<p>Our guild has a leader and a long established procedure to elect him or her. I’m sure we’ll adapt, however, if I might offer a few suggestions to any devs who might be listening – most of our guild would consider it unseemly to nominate ourselves. How about giving us the ability to nominate each other as well? Also, please consider an option for the leader to resign and maintain their rank. In Wild Seven when a guild leader resigns he is automatically a leader emeritus and retains that title for life.</p>Fri, 02 Jan 2015 00:28:07 +0000Vorpal<p>We have 3 candidates so far for <strong>StA</strong> leader, and each will get nary a vote. One candidate was chastised in the <strong>GC</strong> and ended up leaving the guild. The candidate still appears as a viable candidate, so if nothing else, we have exposed a bug. And the bot that keeps posting in our <strong>GC</strong> is becoming very annoying! Go bother some other guild, we want no part of this! <strong>Power to the Slaves</strong></p>Fri, 02 Jan 2015 01:09:46 +0000Vorpal<p>If I may take the liberty of quoting our <strong>Lady Elfen</strong>, “The culture and flavor of our fellowship reflects this guiding principle: Armok is our Lord and we are his Slaves. We need no leader- dwarf, human, or elf.”</p>
<p>Leave us be</p>Fri, 02 Jan 2015 01:22:11 +0000The Almighty Frans<p>For bigger guilds getting the 35% is undo-able either. In Blue Feather we have 300+ cardinal or higher. That means more than 105 votes are needed. But most of the high ranked players are afk. Currently some 25-30 votes have been cast (on three different persons). No way we’re going to reach 35%.
35% of the voters would be better (but then I’d say it should be 50%).
Also voters should have the option to vote blank (so they are counted as actual voter).</p>Fri, 02 Jan 2015 08:38:20 +0000Dormiin<p>I don’t like that only a Cardinal or higher ranked hero are allowed to vote when they are either a too small or to large majority of the guild. Most active players are lower ranked (at least in my guild) therefore we should have a say in who leads us. We have a about three out of the five votes we need but those three votes are the only active members I’ve seen in the higher ranks. What if they don’t magically pop up by the the end of the week? Do we go through the nomination process again? Does the one canidate who was nominated banned from running again? There are a lot of question they didn’t answer that bothers me.</p>Fri, 02 Jan 2015 11:42:44 +0000Brinjal<p><strong>Vorpal</strong> I don’t want to sound mean or disrespectful, because I think you’re a great guy, and don’t want to upset you, but you really seem to be overreacting here.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>We have 3 candidates so far for <strong>StA</strong> leader, and each will get nary a vote.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In that case, no 35% and no guild leader for you, your problem of not wanting a guild leader is solved!</p>
<blockquote>
<p>And the bot that keeps posting in our <strong>GC</strong> is becoming very annoying!</p>
</blockquote>
<p>If my guild council and my alt’s are anything to go by then you’ll have had two messages, seven days apart. Unless for some reason the bot is much more active in your guild, it’s not worth complaining about.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Go bother some other guild, we want no part of this! <strong>Power to the Slaves</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>If you don’t want a part in this, don’t take part. Don’t nominate yourself, don’t vote, and if anyone gets into power, kick them out. You, the slaves, already <em>have</em> the power!</p>
<p>Now don’t get me wrong, I acknowledge that the system here is far from perfect. It doesn’t let the newer members (who are often the more active ones) have a say. It has a harsh punishment for being deposed, the voting is not anonymous and lets you see totals prior to voting, the 3/35% rule makes getting someone elected extremely hard for guilds on both ends of the size spectrum, and those guilds have it even harder because even if they do get someone elected, they’ll have to do it all again in three months! Without a doubt, the system has plenty to complain about. But aside from the bug you found, none of the things you mentioned are worth complaining over.</p>
<p>I really don’t want to seem like I have anything against you in particular. I don’t, I respect you. And I don’t want to start a flame war either. I’ve just become more and more annoyed by the many silly complaints I’ve seen since this update and wanted to vent my annoyance. I’m sorry if I have upset you or anyone else with this rant.</p>Fri, 02 Jan 2015 13:17:35 +0000Vorpal<p><strong>Brinjal</strong>- The purpose of having threads such as this on the <em>Game News</em> is for players to be able to express their opinions and concerns regarding the <em>updates and enhancements.</em> I personally rarely post in these <em>Game News</em> threads, but this is something I feel strongly about. I am personally not against this update, in general. But, guilds like ours that want no heirarchy of <ins>any kind</ins> should have been taken into consideration before the release of the update. If my postings here have offended you that was not the intent. You may think I’ve overreacted, but I will back down from nothing I’ve posted here.</p>
The only candidate remaining in <em>elections</em> on the <strong>StA</strong> guild page is the player that is no longer in the guild.Fri, 02 Jan 2015 16:48:55 +0000Brinjal<p><strong>Vorpal</strong> I know the purpose of these threads is to allow players to express opinions and concerns. I’ve been doing just that.</p>
<p>I assure you that your postings have not offended me. So no worries about that.</p>Fri, 02 Jan 2015 18:22:39 +0000Obscureone<p>As brinjal has pointed out, you can just choose not to participate in the leadership. The game literally hasn’t changed for you. One could say that your shunning of hierarchy only becomes even more pronounced when you have a hierarchical system you are actively avoiding.</p>
<p>On the whole I think a great many people are viewing this much too seriously. This is not supposed to be “Oh I’m Lord and master of this guild listen to me and hear me roar”. This isn’t supposed to replace the guild founder or actual leader that any guild has. Lady shadows will always be the head of hidden shadows in heart if not in actuality. This is supposed to be a silly feature where people take turns being leader, creating silly guild Council topics and making mascots and whatnot. That’s why it’s a temporary position. And everyone is so worried about losing their guild rank. I understand it takes a long time to get to heirarch and above and I would be upset if I were a prophet and lost that, but the deposing of the leader isn’t suppose to happen very often if even at all. Again some clarity on the devs part regarding how much it takes to depose a leader would be good, but the fact remains that at the end of the day it’s just a game. While constructive criticism is good and even complaining can be useful. It feels like people are upset without actually considering everything.</p>Sat, 03 Jan 2015 02:03:20 +0000Obscureone<p>Side note:</p>
<p>I agree voting should at least be anonymous if not hidden entirely. You should be allowed to change your vote, but having it show who voted for who doesn’t really serve a purpose. I foresee more positives than negatives from showing the percentage, but I’m mostly indifferent to those.</p>Sat, 03 Jan 2015 02:11:32 +0000Vorpal<p>All candidates gone from <strong>StA</strong> GC! That’s just the way we like it….</p>Sat, 03 Jan 2015 17:50:23 +0000Azzageddi<p>Hurrah for the Slaves, <strong>Vorpal</strong>!</p>
<p>We’re voting in the GV-approved election, mainly just to see how the new features work, but it’s not looking like we’ll be getting 35% total votes, much less 35% for a single candidate. We have a suggestion to wait one more day, then ask everyone to shift their votes to the lead candidate—even then, unless we get several more voters, we will not be able to make the 35% mark.</p>
<p>However, we’ve decided to make the best of it and use this period of political interest to hold a fresh election of our Inner Council. And that’s going just fine. Differences with the “official” election:</p>
<ol>
<li>Shared responsibility among several members.</li>
<li>No “leader”—and thus no need to impeach.</li>
<li>Everyone in the guild can vote—we’re not cutting out our most active and interested members.</li>
<li>We’ll hold new elections when we feel like it, but we’ll check whether anyone wants to every three months.</li>
<li>No special powers like totem monsters, true—but better able to deal with the (few) day to day needs of the guild.</li>
</ol>
<p>If we do elect a leader, it’ll be someone who is on the Inner Council anyway, and that person will basically be working for the Inner Council, and thus the guild as a whole.</p>Sun, 04 Jan 2015 13:14:51 +0000Ronners<p>My guild has one vote cast so far in total for the two candidates. What happens then? Just no leader? Also, why can’t I vote for myself? It doesn’t let me vote for my hero!</p>Sun, 04 Jan 2015 17:40:40 +0000Brinjal<p><strong>Ronners</strong> In my election I am able to vote for myself (Haven’t, though.) Not sure why you are unable to vote for yourself. Strange.</p>Sun, 04 Jan 2015 19:00:20 +0000Hairplug4men<p>I just want to say as a larger guild with the winner needing 99 votes we are down to less than 1% with two days left for the leader to take the win. Large guilds can do this if they campaign properly. I like the idea of knowing who other people voted for and for the votes the public. People will get upset when they see their friends not voting for them but other people will be motivated to vote based on to others voted for. That is how popularity contests work. And that’s what this new position is</p>Mon, 05 Jan 2015 14:08:40 +0000Syrocko<p>I love the new direction this feature is taking us. However Harvest Moon and some other guilds are so large that it’s taking a massive combined effort just to get 35% of our eligible members to vote at all. It’s good that with great effort will manage to have a leader, but really there’s no chance for competition here, because it will only work out if everyone sportingly agrees to back a single candidate. If there were 2 strong rival campaigns, the election would be pointless because we’d end up with no leader at all. I’d suggest the following amendments to the system:</p>
<p>1) allow members to vote for having no leader, in order to keep those guilds who do not want a leader (or are not content with any of the candidates) happy. If the “no leader” option gets the most votes, nobody wins the election</p>
<p>2) to be elected, a candidate should need a minimum of 35% of all votes that are actually cast, instead of 35% of all potential votes.</p>
<p>Amendment 2 would provide a fair opportunity for a competitive campaign, while amendment 1 would help ensure that an unwanted leader could not sneak themselves in with just a tiny handful of votes. If someone did manage to get in with only say, 10 votes, it would not matter because the rest of the voters could have easily stopped them but clearly did not care enough to do so.</p>
<p>I love this new addition to the game, and it could be great fun with just a little fine tuning!</p>Tue, 06 Jan 2015 13:11:36 +0000The Almighty Frans<p>If it has to be a % I’d say it should be a % of the active players in a guild. So e.g. if a player has reached cardinal but has not been logged in for a week or so he or she should not be counted towards the 35% that is needed.
Maybe it is good to have a limit on the level to avoid that someone throws in several alts that just join a guild before an election.</p>Tue, 06 Jan 2015 20:49:33 +0000Brinjal<p><strong>The Almighty Frans</strong> a rank or Cardinal is required, so someone sending in several alts right before an election wouldn’t be an issue.</p>Tue, 06 Jan 2015 21:46:19 +0000Syrocko<p>Actually, I don’t think the problem has so much to do with players who haven’t logged in for some time. I believe far more will not be bothered to vote because they play Godville as the mindless ZPG it is marketed as, and have little interest in the community or anything beyond the occasional glance in on their hero. Some of them will be old timers who used to be more active but have grown tired and gone into a bit of a slumber. More of them will be players who were always very casual and are content to remain that way.</p>
<p>On another note, if the minimum votes required continues to be based on a % of potential voters (as opposed to actual voters) I would suggest that 10% is about the right number, rather than 35%.</p>Tue, 06 Jan 2015 21:56:04 +0000Brinjal<p>I agree with the suggestion to replace the percentage with 10% Either that, or keep it at 35%, but make that be the total number of votes required, rather than the percentage on one individual candidate.</p>Tue, 06 Jan 2015 23:45:38 +0000Brinjal<p>I agree with the suggestion to replace the percentage with 10% Either that, or keep it at 35%, but make that be the total number of votes required, rather than the percentage on one individual candidate.</p>Tue, 06 Jan 2015 23:45:39 +0000Brinjal<p>Looks like that last comment got sent twice. That’s a bug.</p>Tue, 06 Jan 2015 23:46:49 +0000Azzageddi<p>Agreed, <strong>Syrocko</strong>. We are currently a half a percent short and it is nerve-wracking. And this is supposed to be a ZPG. I don’t want to be pressuring people! The whole point of this game (for most players, I think) is ‘no pressure’! That’s why it’s the only game I play.</p>
<p>I honestly am just trying to do a good job of “playing the election mini-game” this first time, but I’m not sure we’ll really try in three months, after we get to see what these new features are, unless things are tweaked so it’s just easier to do this without having to exhort people, “get out the vote,” PM long-absent players, and so on. It’s probably not worth it. I certainly won’t be standing for election next time, but I’ll help out whoever in our guild does.</p>Wed, 07 Jan 2015 03:06:16 +0000Artsonian<p>In Blue Feather, we have 17.5% who have voted. So I suppose we’re the test case for “not 35%”. Either way, it’ll be the same result, since <strong>SBFH</strong> is slated to win with the few votes that have been cast.
Meanwhile, today’s earthly news? <strong>Aggressively demanding to be more popular…</strong> ;-)</p>
<p>Good luck to all, and congrats to Harvest Moon, for pulling it off!</p>Wed, 07 Jan 2015 18:39:37 +0000Avgp<p>We only got 19 people eligible for voting and only 5-6 actually voted. I’ve got 31.5% and I think that’s from the five actual active members…so what happens then?</p>Wed, 07 Jan 2015 22:41:07 +0000Avgp<p>Election notice: the leader has not been selected, because none of the candidates has received the required number of votes.</p>
<p>Gee, I wonder if we’re the only ones…</p>Thu, 08 Jan 2015 00:21:16 +0000Artsonian<p>We have our answer….. it’s “Nomination Week” in Blue Feather once more. :-/</p>Thu, 08 Jan 2015 00:33:37 +0000Hairplug4men<p>larger guilds can do this and smaller guilds can do this. It just requires a little bit of effort which in a zero player game is really harder than it appears. Harvest Moon and sowing Sun both got leaders. Thanks Godville for the new fun update.</p>Thu, 08 Jan 2015 00:43:43 +0000Azzageddi<p>Well, we managed it in the end. Just barely. Now if be interested to know what adjustments people would like to see before next time. Lower percentage, lower ranks allowed to vote, stuff like that. I really hated having to bug and poke members who were happily not participating. What I like about this game is that it allows people to play the way they want to—including not play at all.</p>
<p>But for the moment, I’d like to mention this:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Guild members can impeach the guild leader if his decisions doesn’t reflect the opinion of the guild. Members with the cardinal rank (or higher) can vote for early re-elections which will take place if they are supported by more that 45% of all voters.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Aside from the grammar error (“if his decisions don’t”), I was found the sexist language on all the elections announcements pretty glaring, because it has normally been avoided in Godville. Two of our three candidates were women. This can easily be fixed: “Guild members can impeach leaders if their decisions don’t…”</p>
<p>Sorry, this comes of being an English professor, perhaps. But I wouldn’t be surprised if women are a slight majority of players of this game.</p>Thu, 08 Jan 2015 01:32:35 +0000Iduna<p>Has anyone ever told you that you are Awesome Azzageddi!</p>Thu, 08 Jan 2015 02:18:53 +0000The God Of Monsters<p>Some thoughts on the new features, now that we have more inf oavailable.</p>
<p>I’m hoping the <strong>Guild Council Topic</strong> (GCT), once set, gets stickied to the top of guild chat for 24h, as that little Guildbot post can get scrolled off in an hour or less if guild chat starts churning.</p>
<p><strong>Forum Topic</strong> (FT) – Making a link to the guild forum appear on our guild page is a cool new feature. Thanks!</p>
<p><strong>High Level Rank</strong> (HLR) is not much use to our guild yet. We won’t even have one Prophet before October, let alone 5! Linking it to being a top 20 guild in Popularity is odd. Does that mean that if you drop out of the top 20 your HLR disappears?</p>
<p><strong>Totem Monster</strong>™ – the requirement to be top 20 in Duelery will annoy some. Top 100 would be more reasonable. (Our guild is currently #3 in Duelery, 2300 points ahead of #4, so this concern is aimed at other, less aggressive guilds; bear in mind we are a guild of about 100 members and that the #1 and #2 in Duelery have over 500 members each.) #20 currently has a 1284 Rating. Most guilds struggle to add even a couple of hundred to their rating. Also, what if you select a totem and then drop out of the top 20? Position 100 currently has a Rating of just 718 and the effort required to move into and stay in the top 100 is much less than the effort required to stake out a stable spot in the top 20.</p>Thu, 08 Jan 2015 02:56:55 +0000The God Of Monsters<p>(I see that Guild Council Topic <strong>does</strong> get stickied. Good)</p>Thu, 08 Jan 2015 03:08:58 +0000Azzageddi<p><strong>The God Of Monsters</strong> – I like those suggestions.</p>
<p><strong>Iduna</strong> – aw, thanks!</p>
<p>I know I’ve said some negative things about these elections, and, well, I’m going to say more. But at the moment I do want to say that I know the Devs are trying their best to make fun new features for the game. I think they stumbled a bit here, but I do very much appreciate the effort, and I think this can be turned into something good with a few adjustments.</p>Thu, 08 Jan 2015 03:12:09 +0000Iduna<p>And on the forums there is more activity which is never bad!</p>Thu, 08 Jan 2015 03:19:55 +0000Bellatrixie The Strange<p>When will the high guild rank and mascot features be available? Harvest Moon is eligible for both due to its pantheon standings, yet both are listed as unavailable.</p>Thu, 08 Jan 2015 06:41:58 +0000The God Of Monsters<p>Looks like they are available now, <strong>Bellatrixie</strong>. And woot, no mention of the dreaded top 20 pantheon requirements.</p>Thu, 08 Jan 2015 13:31:49 +0000Brinjal<p>The top 20 pantheon requirements (and the prophet requirement) are still there for me.</p>Thu, 08 Jan 2015 15:07:10 +0000Naturalblondechick<p>Here is the thing it is not easy, but a lot of the honored achievements in this game are not easy. Getting the total amount to retire is not easy. None of these things are impossible but if it was meant to be easy it would be and everyone to do it. But I personally think that a guild achievement like this should not be easy.</p>Thu, 08 Jan 2015 17:15:55 +0000Artsonian<p>Adding to what <strong>NaturalBlondChick</strong> said – the fact that so many of the main/big guilds managed to pull it off makes me a heck of a lot less comfortable saying it can’t be done/it’s not fair. We just gotta work for it, that’s all.</p>
<p>Good luck to all elected leaders out there. Congrats and enjoy your new fun!</p>Thu, 08 Jan 2015 20:00:57 +0000The God Of Monsters<p>Updating my previous post, it looks like anyone but the guild leadeer still sees <em>“A guild can select a Godville monster as its totem once it reaches Top-20 in the pantheon of Duelery”</em> whereas the guild leader gets <em>“Here a guild leader can designate a Godville monster to be the guild’s totem. A totem monster can be picked from the regular Godville monsters (not strong monsters or bosses) and it can’t be changed until the next elections”.</em></p>
<p>I wonder if all guild leaders see the same thing but it has no effect unless they’re in the top 20, or if leaders of guilds not in the top 20 see something else?</p>Thu, 08 Jan 2015 23:18:28 +0000Brinjal<p><strong>God of Monsters</strong> as a leader of a non-elegible guild, I can confirm that if the guild is not elegible, the leader sees the same as non-leaders normally do.</p>Thu, 08 Jan 2015 23:30:30 +0000Syrocko<p>My point was not that it’s too difficult for a large guild to elect a leader. My point was that the current system does not enable competition or rival campaigns in large guilds. Rather it ensures that such a guild can only succeed if members sportingly agree to vote for one specific candidate, regardless of whom they would actually like to support. Based on the dev’s description above, this is not how the new feature was intended to work.</p>Thu, 08 Jan 2015 23:51:54 +0000Iduna<p>The new system makes the GC much more fun!</p>Fri, 09 Jan 2015 00:00:14 +0000The God Of Monsters<p>Thanks for that, <strong>Brinjal</strong>. I’m hoping OMG will drop in and out of the top 20 Popularity over the next few days so I can see what effect a change in Top 20 ranking has on the High-level Rank setting.</p>
<p>To take pressure off this Blog thread I have created a <a>Guild Leader</a> page on the GodWiki that can be updated with the latest info as we explore the new features. (I hope that link works – the Blog is sometimes a bit funny about links, and we can’t edit our comments once posted – but if not just search the wiki for “Guild Leader” and the page should pop up.)</p>Fri, 09 Jan 2015 04:25:22 +0000Iduna<p>I am really impressed by all the creativity that is bursting forth! I know this hasn’t been an easy change for everybody but the results have been astounding. I just hope the devs can work out the kinks so that everyone can enjoy it!</p>Fri, 09 Jan 2015 06:34:20 +0000Avgp<p>The Dinner for One guild has decided not to elect a leader for two reasons:</p>
<p>1. Not enough active members to meet the threshold.</p>
<p>2. Our guild has been doing fine without one.</p>
<p>Thank you</p>Fri, 09 Jan 2015 12:07:28 +0000The God Of Monsters<p>I can confirm that five prophets are indeed required to set a High-level Title, even though the game made the option available to Order of the Monster Gods (presumably because we were top 20 in Popularity). It was not until I clicked “Set” that the game told me we needed 5 prophets. OK, I sort of expected that but it’s poor design.</p>
<p>The game should not offer this option if for any reason a guild does not currently qualify to set High-level Title. The message “A guild can set its own high-level guild rank if it has at least five prophets and it reaches Top-20 in the Popularity pantheon” should be displayed instead.</p>Sat, 10 Jan 2015 07:15:17 +0000The God Of Monsters<p>Our guild held a vote on our Totem Monster but the monster chosen by popular vote was rejected by the game. There was no way for us to check in advance that the nominated monsters were acceptable.</p>
<p>The error message for setting for totem monster is actively user-hostile. In trying to set a monster, whether there is a typographical error or the monster is a “strong” monster or another guild has already chosen it, the same message is displayed. Good luck guessing what the actual problem is!</p>
<p>The fact that the error message is only displayed once you confirm that you want to use this monster is an additional issue.</p>
<p>Since the field is free text and “fat fingers” and “auto-carrot” are common problems, adding some context to the error would help, for example “Monster not found (check spelling)”, “Monster is not a regular monster”, or “Another guild has already chosen this monster”.</p>Sat, 10 Jan 2015 07:27:40 +0000Syrocko<p>I love it how the guild totem monster rewards the hero when s/he meets it.</p>
<p>Also, the more I think about it, the more I agree with Brinjal’s idea of making it so 35% of eligible members need to vote in total (I.e. The votes could be split in any way and they needn’t vote for one specific candidate) before a winner can be chosen. Maybe it could even be a little higher, like 40%. But changing the requirement this way would not have the advantage of not limiting competition and rival campaigns in large guilds the way the present system does, while ensuring that a winner could only be chosen if a lot of interest is shown in actually having one, and members can be persuaded to make the effort.</p>Sat, 10 Jan 2015 19:40:09 +0000YYZ<p>the good/ best thing about these new ‘guild enhancements, is that overall, whoever is ’in power’, will truly have little power at all. Like the Queen Mum, just a figurehead adored by everyone but welding little true power. (As it stands now) The worst thing about these new ‘guild enhancements’ is that it has broken the peace of GV, as a whole, and has also brought out the worst in a lot of us. For some guilds, it is applicable and beneficial. For some guilds, it is detrimental. A monumental move by the developers. Over time, it will evolve and ‘guild enhancements’ will continue to be added</p>Sun, 11 Jan 2015 13:47:41 +0000Artsonian<p>I echo <strong>Syrocko</strong> and <strong>Brinjal</strong> on having that be the minimum votes <strong>cast</strong>, but then the majority of those wins. A group of us are doing a huge “Get Out the Vote” campaign in Blue Feather, but we also have a couple viable candidates in the running. Even if we get 200 people to vote, and they’re split between even just the top two candidates <del>-</del> we won’t hit our 111 votes needed. I know that’s how this first election is happening, and I know it can be done, and I’m <em>hoping</em> we can do it too. This is just for future elections.</p>
<p>I would <strong>much</strong> prefer allowing individual votes to matter, rather than some subgroup getting to decide “This is who you will back.” Even with the idea of having everyone shift their votes on the last day to the top candidate <del>-</del> that’s a lot more communication (“Thanks for voting, now go do it again”) that needs to be done with players who may or may not be that invested in the process.</p>Mon, 12 Jan 2015 20:37:14 +0000Bellatrixie The Strange<p>Thank you, devs, for adding a countdown clock so leaders know when to change the guild council topic! I love it!</p>Fri, 16 Jan 2015 08:07:18 +0000Hell Kitty<p>We are a new guild with 28 members but nobody ranked is higher than Follower. I don’t think we should be seeing this:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Registration is open
This week is a nomination week. Any guild member with a rank of hierarch or higher can nominate themselves to be a guild leader. Healthy debates in the Guild Council are welcomed.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This is a bug. Since we have no Hierarchs, nobody can nominate. Since we have no Cardinals (let alone 5 Cardinals), nobody can vote. Why confuse us with stuff that we can’t do anything about?</p>Sun, 18 Jan 2015 07:51:41 +0000HiroGashi<p>.</p>Tue, 20 Jan 2015 21:10:33 +0000Pellia<p>I agree that there needs to be a tweak. My small guild has yet to get enough votes to actually get a leader, partly due to the ZPG nature of the game. Some members never participate in guild council chat, but are active prophets.</p>Thu, 22 Jan 2015 00:38:20 +0000Dormiin<p>Voting needs to be open to all members of the guild for the simple fact that there are not enough active higher ups in most guilds to vote a leader. This is my guild’s second week of the process because we don’t have enough active members. If everyone could vote, then there would also be more campaigning, (which would probably be extremely entertaining), and members would be more active in talking with their guildmates.</p>Sun, 22 Feb 2015 15:30:16 +0000Robin0999<p>Hope everyone had a good holiday</p>Mon, 23 Feb 2015 06:58:21 +0000Guido Burrito<p>I agree with the other comment about allowing more people to run and even vote. I am running only because there was no one else that even reads the guild page that ranks high enough. Now that I am running there are not enough people that rank high enough to get the needed votes. Fun idea but guild 207 is leaderless at this time</p>Fri, 06 Mar 2015 09:00:27 +0000R35<p>Hey guys can you help me here I am just new here in godville</p>Sat, 28 Mar 2015 02:25:11 +0000LexyZadie<p>B-)</p>Mon, 30 Mar 2015 00:21:12 +0100Azzageddi<p>Sooooo…6 days left until the next election. Any hints on whether there will be any changes?</p>Wed, 01 Apr 2015 06:44:26 +0100Komoodo-<p>Stop wasting your time on this game</p>Wed, 22 Apr 2015 05:59:56 +0100Buggen<p>Happy Happy Holidays! ♥♥♥</p>Tue, 02 Jun 2015 17:41:39 +0100Amadeus Goddammit<p>Potato</p>Sun, 07 Jun 2015 21:03:27 +0100